The game is a lot of fun. I've experienced some tense moments that ended in glorious victory and terrible defeat.

I have a few suggestions / wishes:

1) Please allow more variety when it comes to battle set ups. Expand the setup zone, and / or randomize how large it is, and where it is (and make it optional, for those of us who don't want what I am suggesting). Sometimes a lot of the map is off limits because the set up zone is relatively small, and if there is some good terrain for defense, or a clear lane of open ground for an assault, or a forest through which to sneak a flanking force, I am unable to take advantage given the setup zone and the number of turns available.

2) Larger maximum map sizes would be great (only limited by the resources of the computer).

3) A greater number of soldiers in a given battle would also be nice.

4) Implement larger unit model sizes to provide a better sense that many thousands of people are present on the field. Instead of 8 soldier models, how about 16, 24, 48...? Whatever the convenient upper limit might be. I suspect that doing so might require some map adjustments and other work, but it would look pretty impressive.

5) I understand the mechanism where some units will push forward after an enemy falls back, but that should have some additional A.I. built in. It shouldn't ALWAYS happen, because it isn't sensible for a unit to assault, force an oppoent back, and then advance right into the middle of other enemy units, only to be flanked and routed the very next turn. I realize the player should judiciously time assaults with such units and properly support the attack, but I think it also makes sense for the units to utilize good judgement and not get themselves destroyed by advancing too far. And...sometimes they SHOULD advance too far and get destroyed, because that actually happened on occasion.

6) This wonderful tactical game, in my opinion, SCREAMS for integrating a deep strategic layer. Political complexity of Crusader Kings II + some elements from Medieval Total War 2 + FOGII for playing out battles = awesomeness.

-Crusader Kings 2 has some great management stuff, and I love the idea of developing a proud lineage (or not so proud) throughout the years while keeping the other powermad people in the kingdom at bay, but the battles are awfully boring.

-Medieval Total War 2 presents fun battles, but there were many things that were quite wrong, and the AI wasn't exactly spectacular. TW games since then have gotten more and more ridiculously unrealistic and over-the-top.

You guys would have a major hit on your hands that would embody believable battle outcomes on the tactical field plus alliances, economic, and strategic management. Throw in the court intrigues and the challenges of keeping an ever-growing empire faithful to you, and multiple human oponents available online... I'd never leave home. Of course, make everything optional in the settings screen. If someone doesn't want the CK2 level stuff, for example, they can turn it off.

BillLottJr wrote:Here's a strictly "chrome" type suggestion. In the combat result pop-up, if a general is killed, instead of saying "Our general has fallen!" could the name of the general be displayed instead?

Message Suggestion.jpg

Strange, it normally does display the name of the general, unless the general is not named. Some of the sub-generals in some of the historical scenarios are not named, because we were unable to find out their names.

As a computer game can handle a lot more variables that a normal table top game, but not wishing it complicate it too much, could fatigue be taken into account. Maybe this may tip the enjoyment versus realism factor too much.

It could be a simple slider graphic on the unit pop up menu and as activities such as charging, melees, etc. take place, then the unit’s ability to do “stuff” would decline until rested. So a unit fighting in melee would probably be “tired” after seeing off an opposite unit and would be unlikely, on average, (and quality permitting) want to charge on and take on more and more units until re-energized. That’s not to say that would never happen and the player should have that option (maybe POA adjustment?). Similarly, if heavy infantry want to charge around the battlefield chasing skirmishers, then this would also affect its fatigue after time. Recovering from fatigue would take time (say 1 turn or more?) remaining stationary, depending on troop quality?
Also may encourage reserves of fresh troops to throw in when the front line is stuffed. Mounted/non-mounted would be different. Maybe a step( difficulty) too far?

Also could infantry ( not as sure -maybe mounted as well?) have an option to advance into enemy skirmishers ( LH,LI), rather than charge them. So the non-skirmishers move their full move and skirmishers retire in front of them. You’ll still get peppered on your advance, but eventually they will peel off as the opposites lines close.

BillLottJr wrote:Here's a strictly "chrome" type suggestion. In the combat result pop-up, if a general is killed, instead of saying "Our general has fallen!" could the name of the general be displayed instead?

The attachment Message Suggestion.jpg is no longer available

Strange, it normally does display the name of the general, unless the general is not named. Some of the sub-generals in some of the historical scenarios are not named, because we were unable to find out their names.

What battle is your screenshot from?

It's from a scenario I'm building of Gaugamela, (to teach myself how to use the editor), so it's quite possible that I have done something wrong. If you click on the unit, it does show the general's name. Is there a description file that has to be edited as well?
I wonder if the odd situation where neither the elephants or the companion cavalry suffered any casualties, but the leader was killed could have affected the message display?
[attachment=0]Alexander.jpg[/attachment

BillLottJr wrote:Here's a strictly "chrome" type suggestion. In the combat result pop-up, if a general is killed, instead of saying "Our general has fallen!" could the name of the general be displayed instead?

Message Suggestion.jpg

Strange, it normally does display the name of the general, unless the general is not named. Some of the sub-generals in some of the historical scenarios are not named, because we were unable to find out their names.

What battle is your screenshot from?

It's from a scenario I'm building of Gaugamela, (to teach myself how to use the editor), so it's quite possible that I have done something wrong. If you click on the unit, it does show the general's name. Is there a description file that has to be edited as well?

If so, I can't immiedately think what it might be.

I wonder if the odd situation where neither the elephants or the companion cavalry suffered any casualties, but the leader was killed could have affected the message display?

garymann wrote:As a computer game can handle a lot more variables that a normal table top game, but not wishing it complicate it too much, could fatigue be taken into account. Maybe this may tip the enjoyment versus realism factor too much.

It could be a simple slider graphic on the unit pop up menu and as activities such as charging, melees, etc. take place, then the unit’s ability to do “stuff” would decline until rested. So a unit fighting in melee would probably be “tired” after seeing off an opposite unit and would be unlikely, on average, (and quality permitting) want to charge on and take on more and more units until re-energized. That’s not to say that would never happen and the player should have that option (maybe POA adjustment?). Similarly, if heavy infantry want to charge around the battlefield chasing skirmishers, then this would also affect its fatigue after time. Recovering from fatigue would take time (say 1 turn or more?) remaining stationary, depending on troop quality?
Also may encourage reserves of fresh troops to throw in when the front line is stuffed. Mounted/non-mounted would be different. Maybe a step( difficulty) too far?

Fatigue rules such as you describe ruined Wargames Research Group 7th edition rules and led to the game being less rather than more realistic - probably they were overdone. Hence we are very wary.

We feel the game already reflects the difference between fresh and exhausted units without specific fatigue rules, just as it rewards having reserves without explicit bonuses for having them. We certainly have no plans to add explicit fatigue rules, but modders can if they want.

Also could infantry ( not as sure -maybe mounted as well?) have an option to advance into enemy skirmishers ( LH,LI), rather than charge them. So the non-skirmishers move their full move and skirmishers retire in front of them. You’ll still get peppered on your advance, but eventually they will peel off as the opposites lines close.

Another thing that has often been suggested but doesn't get the effect we want. We want there to be a potential for the line to become ragged when trying to drive away skirmishers.

A rule like this would certainly be needed if we had explicit fatigue rules for charging - which is what messed up WRG 7th edition, because heavy troops soon became exhausted charging skirmishers. This does, of course, represent a real life phenomenon, but like everything else, can be overdone.

Over-representing things in games is often a lot worse than not explicitly representing them at all, especially when the existing rules do in fact represent them in an indirect way.

Fatigue rules such as you describe ruined Wargames Research Group 7th edition rules and led to the game being less rather than more realistic - probably they were overdone. Hence we are very wary.

We feel the game already reflects the difference between fresh and exhausted units without specific fatigue rules, just as it rewards having reserves without explicit bonuses for having them. We certainly have no plans to add explicit fatigue rules, but modders can if they want.

Don't worry Garryman, he told me no too. I strongly don't think the game is accurate representation of ancient warfare without fatigue rules. I also feel relying on WRG 7th edition is kind of a cop-out. There are numerous ancient miniature rule sets out there that represent fatigue well. I think units that can fight ten turns in a row, finally break a warband, and then start charging again totally breaks the immersion of being a ancients battle but a video game instead. So, I will keep playing and recognize the FOGII is as close as I am going to get.

I think the WRG 7th ed experience was given just as an example of why there is a caution to employ a fatigue rule, not the reason it's not there.

I see both sides of the issue - but fatigue would be something that has to be done right. Otherwise, then people will complain about it breaking the game. You're right though, I think at the moment we're as close as we can get - but Richard is listening and discusses these things, so we know that over time we will get closer, and closer...

A fatigue system does not have to be complicated. Maybe a one turn pause in between rounds for foot to gather themselves before they charge off again. Maybe a slow POA reduction over time -5 each round of consecutive combat that is erased when you give the unit a round with no combat. I am just spitballing some ideas here.

Ideas are always welcome and we always appreciate the time everyone takes to give feedback and suggestions for improvements ... even if the decision is taken not to pursue them (or more prosaically we are unable to due to engine/code limitations)

Joe314 wrote:The game is a lot of fun. I've experienced some tense moments that ended in glorious victory and terrible defeat.

I have a few suggestions / wishes:

5) I understand the mechanism where some units will push forward after an enemy falls back, but that should have some additional A.I. built in. It shouldn't ALWAYS happen, because it isn't sensible for a unit to assault, force an oppoent back, and then advance right into the middle of other enemy units, only to be flanked and routed the very next turn. I realize the player should judiciously time assaults with such units and properly support the attack, but I think it also makes sense for the units to utilize good judgement and not get themselves destroyed by advancing too far. And...sometimes they SHOULD advance too far and get destroyed, because that actually happened on occasion.

I lost my first multiplayer game because of this. I had two in line Macedonian Veteran Pike Phalanxes push back two in line Roman Hastati/Principes to the point were they were easily outflanked and attacked in the rear. I understand this is a design component of the game...but should Veteran units be more careful in doing this?

C

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

Exactly. Ferocious warbands can have the restraint not to charge you, but your trained troops do not. Totally unbelievable. At the least,it should be a option to pursue them or at the minimum based on experience with lesser troops making the mistake of advancing.

That is the point. Perhaps not all shocks troops should push back/follow-up a fall back with the same probability...

C

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”